Adequate pleading of forgery in the written statement is crucial for admissibility of evidence under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

Order on Board

30 . 07.2025

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.05.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 259A/2014 by the learned 13^th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, whereby an application moved by the petitioner under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023, has been rejected.

2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction on the ground that the suit property was recorded in the name of his father, namely Late Shri Kundan Lal Agrawal and after his death, he became the owner of the suit property.

3. The defendant No. 1/petitioner filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that a will-deed dated 23.04.1997 was executed by Late Shri Kundan Lal Agrawal in his favour, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has no right over the suit property.

4. The plaintiff filed his examination on oath under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and he was cross-examined thereafter.

5. The petitioner alleged those documents as forged and doubted the signatures of Late Kundan Lal Agrawal. A specific question was put to the plaintiff with regard to the signatures present in Exhibit P/7 to Exhibit P/10 and the signatures present in Exhibit P/20. A suggestion was given to the witness that the signatures are different and forged and this fact was denied by the plaintiff. Certain more questions with regard to the genuineness of the documents were put to the plaintiff, and thereafter, an application under Section 39 of Adhiniyam, 2023, was moved for the examination of signatures of Late Shri Kundan Lal Agrawal on Exhibit P/7 to Exhibit P/10 through a handwriting expert. The plaintiff filed a reply, and thereafter, the learned trial Court rejected the application.

6. Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate, would submit that the signatures over Exhibit P/7 to P/10 are entirely different from the signatures available on the documents filed by defendant No. 1/petitioner. He would further submit that for the just decision of the case, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application moved under Section 39 of the Adhiniyam, 2023.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose.

8. Perusal of the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 would show that defendant No. 1 has not alleged the signatures on Exhibit P/7 to P/10 to be forged in his written statement and for the first time, the doubt is created on those documents by filing an application on 16.04.2025. It appears that during the course of recording of the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, certain documents were exhibited and questions put in cross examination with regard to the validity of the signatures on Ex. P/7 to P/10 were answered in negative.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 moved an application under Section 39 of the Adhiniyam, 2023, to fill up the lacunas as there is no foundation with regard to the forged signatures in the written statement. It appears that the petitioner has moved the application to fill up the lacunas, which is not permissible; therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application.

10. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).